Ok, but I think that part of the universe that is alive is the part we humans are most concerned about - as opposed to some potential divine purpose for Pluto.
I'm not just talking about things like humans on earth vs. Pluto, but for example most of evolution vs. the evolution of intelligence/sentience, or if you want to include the meta-physical evolution of man, vs. morality/ethics, purpose, relationship with God etc.
Science textbooks routinely say life began by chemical evolution, even though a belief that that is so is entirely a matter of faith.
Not entirely faith, parts of the process can be reproduced, although since the whole process can't be reproduced and we can't find serious evidence about it, ideas about it are just hypothesis, rather than real theories (like evolution or relativity).
The whole point of opposition to ID is denial that any part of the evolution of life could be purposeful.
No necessarily. Its the denial that any part has to be purposeful, and sometimes the denial that any part actually is purposeful, but neither of those things amounts to an assertion that it is impossible for any part to be purposeful.
Science is understood to preclude any purposeful origin of anything in the universe.
Not really, but any such purposeful origins would be outside of science, at least if we can't find direct evidence of it.
Saying that "ID is not science" is probably a reasonable statement. It might be religion, pseudoscience, or proto-science. But "not science" doesn't mean "proved wrong" or "can be assumed to be wrong." |
